What? Falsifiability is a major criterion for whether or not something is considered "scientific" or not - that's in about every Intro Science course I've ever taken or heard of. Astrology is not falsifiable - compatibility of persons or determination of actions based on astrological movement isn't falsifiable (because the theoretical sample size - all of humanity - is far too large)but astronomy is indeed falsifiable - the experiments are able to be reproduced, and the possibility exists that the theories can be proven false by the data at hand.

Well, astrology is falsifiable. One can easily take an astrological prediction such as today you will encounter a new friend. But I did not encounter any new friend today, so it has been falsified.

What? Falsifiability is a major criterion for whether or not something is considered "scientific" or not - that's in about every Intro Science course I've ever taken or heard of.

It was said above that the theory of evolution is falsifiable, because it would be possible for the human race to have been started by a group of aliens. Well, if you are going to use the theory of alien landings to falsify evolution and say that it is therefore a scientific theory, one can just as easily say that religion is falsifiable, by such unlikely events. Take for example the teaching that Mary was married to Joseph. This is falsifiable, since if Mary appeared on television across the globe and announced that she was really married to the brother of Joseph, then that would falsify the claim. But no one would say that this teaching of Mary being married to Joseph was scientific in any sense, although it could be falsified in the same way that a discovery of a landing of aliens could be used to falsify the theory of evolution. Similarly other religious teachings could be falsified theoretically, but they would not be classified as scientific.

It was said above that the theory of evolution is falsifiable, because it would be possible for the human race to have been started by a group of aliens. Well, if you are going to use the theory of alien landings to falsify evolution and say that it is therefore a scientific theory, one can just as easily say that religion is falsifiable, by such unlikely events. Take for example the teaching that Mary was married to Joseph. This is falsifiable, since if Mary appeared on television across the globe and announced that she was really married to the brother of Joseph, then that would falsify the claim. But no one would say that this teaching of Mary being married to Joseph was scientific in any sense, although it could be falsified in the same way that a discovery of a landing of aliens could be used to falsify the theory of evolution. Similarly other religious teachings could be falsified theoretically, but they would not be classified as scientific.

Certain accidental details of religion could potentially be falsifiable if, by some chance, we invented a time machine. But the metaphysics of religion cannot be disproven. For instance, we could theoretically disprove the incarnation, the resurrection, and so on and so fort; but you can't disprove the relationship between the one and the logos.

But for that matter, neither can they be proven; the incarnation or resurrection is not a viable scientific theory even independ of the metaphysical claims that surround them because the evidence is simply not there. Without a time machine, there certainly isn't enough evidence to justify calling this a theory (to say nothing of dogma)...it is clearly distinct from scientific theories.

Falsifiability is essential, but not sufficient for a scientific theory; evidence and observation are also required. All scientific theories are falsifiable, but not all falsifiable theories are scientific.

Falsifiability is essential, but not sufficient for a scientific theory; evidence and observation are also required. All scientific theories are falsifiable, but not all falsifiable theories are scientific.

True to some extent. How, though, would one falsify the science of weather forecasting?

Maybe one day we'll find the alien race that put us here and we were just all made from the same beaker with fossils being leftovers from previous experiments or discover that complex life can randomly come into existence under a certain set of physical conditions. Of course, this is highly unlikely, the theory of evolution is rather well established; but the point is that it could be falsified if (and only if) in the future we make some discoveries that point us in a different direction, the theory is open to considering all data, be it data that supports or opposes it. The same goes for atomic theory, the theory of relativity, th etheory of electromagnetism, etc. It's highly unlikely that any of these theories will be falsified, but they are theoretically falsifiable.

I don''t see where any of what you have mentioned here would in any way falsify the idea that a variation in some quality could, over long periods of time, and if environmental conditions encouraged it, lead to either modifications of present species or new species through natural selection.

This doesn't falsify the science of weather forecasting. It only indicates how to modify and improve the present theory.

Depends on how radical the change is; if we found weather patterns traveled through mini-wormholes then it would dismiss the current theory entirely; of course, this is highly unlikely as the theory is well established by data, the most likely means of falsifying the theory would be to prove the data incorrect.

I don''t see where any of what you have mentioned here would in any way falsify the idea that a variation in some quality could, over long periods of time, and if environmental conditions encouraged it, lead to either modifications of present species or new species through natural selection.

You're assuming that all current data would hold up to future discoveries, perhaps someday we could learn that ever observation we have today is incorrect.

Of course, just because a theory is theoretically falsifiable doesn't mean that it's false; I'd personally be willing to bet anyone that the theory of evolution will never be proven false even though, on a theoretical level, it is falsifiable by virtue of being dependent on observations.

Depends on how radical the change is; if we found weather patterns traveled through mini-wormholes then it would dismiss the current theory entirely; of course, this is highly unlikely as the theory is well established by data, the most likely means of falsifying the theory would be to prove the data incorrect.

You are right, of course, however, it is more difficult to falsify a theory than someone might think at first. Take for example, the science of weather forecasting. A while back, I was walking in San Francisco at 10:30 in the morning and the weather announcer said that the weather for today will be sunny and clear all day. However, at the very time that he made that announcement, it was pouring rain, and even so, that did not falsify the science of weather forecasting. Similarly with the science of Global Warming. There have been snowstorms in China. India has had three meters of snow, in Afghanistan 200 people and thousands of sheep have died from an extraordinary cold snap. In the Journal of Geophysical Research, Petr Chylek argues that the Greenland melt is now actually slower than it was in the 1900s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. For the first time in more than 60 years, there was snow in Baghdad, according to satellite data prepared by remss.com, in Summit County Colorado, at the Dillon weather station, the average snow depth for January is eight inches, but this year, Jan 2008, there were 18 inches, and the average daily maximum temperature was 24.1 degrees, well below the historic average of 31.3 degrees. There was a record low temperature of 26 degrees below zero in Yankton, SD on January 24, 2008. In Oregon, records were broken or tied for the early morning low temperature, and it was the coldest February 1 in 48 years in Santa Cruz, India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mumbai/Coldest_Feb_1_in_48_years/articleshow/2749848.cmsIn La Ronge, Sask., Canada, temperatures of -43 degrees on January 30, 2008 broke all records.Etc.But still all this has not falsified the science of global warming.

Faith And Science In Orthodox Gnosiology And MethodologyThe Very Rev. Prof. Dr. Dr. George MetallinosProfessor

Interesting article. A couple of things. I'm not convinced of the whole Catholic/Orthodox divide concerning the problem and understanding of science and theology. Sure, the Roman Catholic Church had issues in the past, such as Galileo, but ultimately, today I tend to see the West handling the issue much better than the Orthodox. The Orthodox who rationalizes their acceptance of science by some sort history of Eastern theological development seems to forget that many of our own Eastern fathers incorporated rationalism (dare I say their own form of "scholasticism") into many of the theological debates at the time. In addition, there are still proud anti-scholastic, anti-Western, anti-Latin, traditionalist Orthodox who find pride in their Eastern mystic tradition that still reject the science of evolution. Actions speak louder than simple historical research, and it seems Catholics and Orthodox are no different concerning this.

The difference I believe just lies in which rational is correct and which rational is wrong. It's obvious that there are many things the Orthodox would disagree with concerning Aquinas, but that doesn't mean that we should throw away some form of rationalism altogether. Orthodox should stop being so political and bias in marketing some form of Christianity that seems so opposite from the West when in fact there are many things they criticize in the West that were acceptable in the earliest centuries of Christianity.

Today, I see many Catholics as well as Orthodox who are educated enough and insightful enough to understand that divine knowledge and created knowledge are two separate realms of knowledge that need not be contradicted. It's logical, it's not merely born out of some Eastern higher standard, and I see Catholics, truth be told, taking it better than us Orthodox.

The most tragic expression of the alienated Christian body is the ecclesiastica1 attitude in the West towards Galileo. The case could be characterized as surpassing the limits of jurisdiction. But it is much more serious, it is the confusion of the limits of knowledge and their conflict. It is a fact that this loss of the wisdom from above in the West and the way of achieving it have caused the intellect (mind) to be used as a tool of not only human wisdom, but of Divine Wisdom too. The use of the intellect in the field of science leads unavoidably to the rejection of the supernatural as incomprehensible, and its use in the field of faith can lead to the rejection of science when it is considered to be in conflict with faith. This same way of thinking and the same loss of criteria is also betrayed by the rejection of the Copernican system in the East (1774-1821). Science, in turn, takes its revenge for the condemnation of Galilee by the Roman Church, in the person of Darwin, with his theory of evolution.

Now the article isn't very clear. At first it advocates an acceptance of science by scientific experts, but then it condemns Darwin as an atheist, and evolution as a atheistic theological study that would have never happened if it wasn't for the pesky "scholastic" Roman Church that condemned Galileo for his "unBiblical" heliocentricism. Give me a break! This whole article is completely bullocks once it presents evolution as some sort of pseudo-science propagated by vengeful atheists.

God bless.

« Last Edit: February 05, 2008, 04:14:04 AM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

....Now the article isn't very clear. At first it advocates an acceptance of science by scientific experts, but then it condemns Darwin as an atheist, and evolution as a atheistic theological study that would have never happened if it wasn't for the pesky "scholastic" Roman Church that condemned Galileo for his "unBiblical" heliocentricism. Give me a break! This whole article is completely bullocks once it presents evolution as some sort of pseudo-science propagated by vengeful atheists.

Could you please do me a favor & re-read the article? only this time outside the social & political context of American Education (I presume you're American, if not, please ignore my remark). I do not want to sound arrogant, but the "problem" of Darwinism or evolutionism, is solved here in Europe for decades (I remember I was tought Darwin's evolution theory in my last high-school year) with one big difference: we studied Darwin's theory alongside its philosophical & political "contributory causes". You see, the problem is not Darwin per se, but Darwin's philosopihical & political thinking: he is the advocate of colonialism & capitalism. His theory appeared in the 19th century as (mostly) an analogism of both capitalism & colonialism: "As in his theory of Natural Selection, Darwin has expressively epitomized the persistence of the strongest, the same phenomenon appears under the conditions of capitalist economy & colonialism in the western society" (White supremacy, survival of the strongest etc). In this article, my dearest prof. in the University, fr. George Metallinos, only tries to present the "false" dichotomy of the western mindset between the natural and the supra-natural. Besides, the difference between myself & the chimp is not in my genes (95% resemblance), but in my freedom (of choice). The question is not whether man is different than the monkey, but whether I am created according to the image of my Father (kath'omoiosin). Or as Christos Yannaras puts it:"The truth of personal existence, cannot be proven with scientific experiments; it is either won or lost inside the relationship. Science has as limits the given reality & clinical detachment of research. On the other side, a supra-natural hermeneutic, pertains only to the "meaning" of things or its absence"

Well the article never mentioned anything about capitalism and colonialism. But considering that you brought something new to the table, this doesn't disprove Darwinism. That's like saying those who came up with the idea of the Trinity thought of the triune nature of man or the sun and helped them formulate a theological dogmatic belief of the Trinitarian God. You appeal to analogies to show how troubling a scientific theory might be. That is one of the biggest jokes I have ever read, and I never expected something like that in order to show the problems of evolution.

The article was clear: Evolution came about as a result of the vengeance of atheists against the Roman Church. I found nothing in there about colonialism or capitalism, unless it wasn't atheists who propagated evolution, but colonialists and capitalists, which makes no sense at all in the topic we're discussing. The article subtly rejects evolution while accepts all other sciences, especially those that the Roman Church "unfairly" condemned, which makes the article clearly more of an anti-Western article than a pro-science one.

Clearly, evolution, like any other science is made by observations of the world, not by some presupposed philosophical, political, or economical notions.

PS Yes, I'm American.

« Last Edit: February 05, 2008, 11:31:40 AM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Well the article never mentioned anything about capitalism and colonialism. But considering that you brought something new to the table, this doesn't disprove Darwinism. That's like saying those who came up with the idea of the Trinity thought of the triune nature of man or the sun and helped them formulate a theological dogmatic belief of the Trinitarian God. You appeal to analogies to show how troubling a scientific theory might be. That is one of the biggest jokes I have ever read, and I never expected something like that in order to show the problems of evolution.

The article was clear: Evolution came about as a result of the vengeance of atheists against the Roman Church. I found nothing in there about colonialism or capitalism, unless it wasn't atheists who propagated evolution, but colonialists and capitalists, which makes no sense at all in the topic we're discussing. The article subtly rejects evolution while accepts all other sciences, especially those that the Roman Church "unfairly" condemned, which makes the article clearly more of an anti-Western article than a pro-science one.

Clearly, evolution, like any other science is made by observations of the world, not by some presupposed philosophical, political, or economical notions.

PS Yes, I'm American.

I don't think you are understanding the article. It basically states that science falls under the created realm of understanding and knowledge of god is a different knowledge based on a relationship with god. If scientific knowledge changes over time it has nothing to do with our knowledge of God. Any theory even the theory of evolution can be accepted and will not change our knowledge of God. In the west because god is rationalized. They can never except evolution as the correct theory. Because god is rationalized and will lead a believer into atheism. Ps I'm Greek and American

I don't think you are understanding the article. It basically states that science falls under the created realm of understanding and knowledge of god is a different knowledge based on a relationship with god. If scientific knowledge changes over time it has nothing to do with our knowledge of God. Any theory even the theory of evolution can be accepted and will not change our knowledge of God. In the west because god is rationalized. They can never except evolution as the correct theory. Because god is rationalized and will lead a believer into atheism. Ps I'm Greek and American

Yes, but the article should have been more clear (and I took my time reading this article). I know the intent was to understand the difference between created and uncreated knowledge, but that sentence really antagonized evolution. In addition, the poster proceeds to talk about colonialism and capitalism, which further confused me. "You see, since colonialism and capitalism are ruling your thinking, get your head out of the gutter and re-read the article. Then you'll realize the weakness behind the science of evolution."

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

You are right, of course, however, it is more difficult to falsify a theory than someone might think at first. Take for example, the science of weather forecasting. A while back, I was walking in San Francisco at 10:30 in the morning and the weather announcer said that the weather for today will be sunny and clear all day. However, at the very time that he made that announcement, it was pouring rain, and even so, that did not falsify the science of weather forecasting. Similarly with the science of Global Warming. There have been snowstorms in China. India has had three meters of snow, in Afghanistan 200 people and thousands of sheep have died from an extraordinary cold snap. In the Journal of Geophysical Research, Petr Chylek argues that the Greenland melt is now actually slower than it was in the 1900s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. For the first time in more than 60 years, there was snow in Baghdad, according to satellite data prepared by remss.com, in Summit County Colorado, at the Dillon weather station, the average snow depth for January is eight inches, but this year, Jan 2008, there were 18 inches, and the average daily maximum temperature was 24.1 degrees, well below the historic average of 31.3 degrees. There was a record low temperature of 26 degrees below zero in Yankton, SD on January 24, 2008. In Oregon, records were broken or tied for the early morning low temperature, and it was the coldest February 1 in 48 years in Santa Cruz, India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mumbai/Coldest_Feb_1_in_48_years/articleshow/2749848.cmsIn La Ronge, Sask., Canada, temperatures of -43 degrees on January 30, 2008 broke all records.Etc.But still all this has not falsified the science of global warming.

AHHHHH!

Falsifiability means that something could theoretically be proven false through observation - that is one of the criteria for a theory or principle being "scientific." Not that it must be falsified, or will be falsified.

Global Warming is falsifiable because it is theorized by observation and can be tested and re-tested by observation. Just because temperatures in an area of the world drop doesn't mean global temperatures aren't rising - there are so many variables involved in the equation that it's impossible to guess each result of Global Warming (for example - Ocean Temperatures might drop before they rise because of all the ICE and ICE WATER being dumped in them at the poles). The high number of variables involved and the massive scale are what (in my opinion) make the statement "Human Beings are the major cause of Global Warming" a non-falsifiable statement. But Global Warming as a trend is falsifiable, and there are many thousands of scientists working as we speak, running and re-running experiments in an attempt to either uphold or prove false the theory.

Logged

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

Falsifiability means that something could theoretically be proven false through observation - that is one of the criteria for a theory or principle being "scientific."

Falsification in some sense might be considered to be a necessary but not sufficient component of a scientific theory. But someone had mentioned that you could falsify a scientific theory by invoking the possibility of alien landings or by time warped wormholes. That seems like a bit of a stretch, taking the phrase "theoretically falsifiable" to a meaning which is practically unattainable or extremely unlikely to occur. In other words, to say that a scientific theory is falsifiable because of the possibility of aliens travelling through time warped wormholes doesn't really say very much, nor does it offer much justification for the theory. The scientific theory is justified by observation, collection and assesment of data and correlation of data and experiment with the proposed hypotheses, not by the fact that it can be falsified by an alien travelling through a wormhole.

Falsification in some sense might be considered to be a necessary but not sufficient component of a scientific theory. But someone had mentioned that you could falsify a scientific theory by invoking the possibility of alien landings or by time warped wormholes. That seems like a bit of a stretch, taking the phrase "theoretically falsifiable" to a meaning which is practically unattainable or extremely unlikely to occur. In other words, to say that a scientific theory is falsifiable because of the possibility of aliens travelling through time warped wormholes doesn't really say very much, nor does it offer much justification for the theory. The scientific theory is justified by observation, collection and assesment of data and correlation of data and experiment with the proposed hypotheses, not by the fact that it can be falsified by an alien travelling through a wormhole.

Of course, the most viable means to falsify a theory would be to, in general, discover that the information we had was incomplete or inaccurate...there are many means by which this could happen, I gave suggestions. That doesn't mean it will ever happen, I seriously doubt we'll see the day when atomic theory or the theory of evolution are falsified, because in all likelihood they are true, but they are, in principle, falsifiable.

Falsification in some sense might be considered to be a necessary but not sufficient component of a scientific theory. But someone had mentioned that you could falsify a scientific theory by invoking the possibility of alien landings or by time warped wormholes. That seems like a bit of a stretch, taking the phrase "theoretically falsifiable" to a meaning which is practically unattainable or extremely unlikely to occur. In other words, to say that a scientific theory is falsifiable because of the possibility of aliens travelling through time warped wormholes doesn't really say very much, nor does it offer much justification for the theory. The scientific theory is justified by observation, collection and assesment of data and correlation of data and experiment with the proposed hypotheses, not by the fact that it can be falsified by an alien travelling through a wormhole.

One cannot theoretically falsify a theory without an observable occurance - so until we actually see aliens and time warped wormholes that are travel-able, we can't use them to falsify a theory, theoretically or not. Reductio ad absurdum seems to be your favorite tactic here, but it's not always the best approach, IMO.

Logged

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

One cannot theoretically falsify a theory without an observable occurance

However, I thought that the contention was that a scientific theory could be falsifiable theoretically even though there was not observable experimental evidence available at the present time which would accomplish that? Then the argument was brought forward by someone else concerning the possibility of using alien landings and time warps or wormholes which could offer the possibility to theoretically falsify a theory such as evolution. Actually, though, I don't think that a verified alien landing would of itself, necessarily imply that the theory of natural selection had been falsified.

However, I thought that the contention was that a scientific theory could be falsifiable theoretically even though there was not observable experimental evidence available at the present time which would accomplish that? Then the argument was brought forward by someone else concerning the possibility of using alien landings and time warps or wormholes which could offer the possibility to theoretically falsify a theory such as evolution. Actually, though, I don't think that a verified alien landing would of itself, necessarily imply that the theory of natural selection had been falsified.

What is necessary for falsifiability is that it is theoretically possible that observable data could disprove it. Thus, any theory that is dependent on observation is falsifiable since it is theoretically possible that this data could prove to be inaccurate or incomplete.

Actually, though, I don't think that a verified alien landing would of itself, necessarily imply that the theory of natural selection had been falsified.

Correct - only an observation that directly contradicts the predictions of the theory can do that; the theory has room for aliens; heck, theoretically the aliens could have evolved from this planet, left, and come back, and wouldn't disrupt the theory. The theory is falsifiable because (one example:) you can go to the Galapagos islands and sit just as Darwin did and observe what he did, and you may potentially find in doing so that he had incorrectly interpreted what he saw / gathered / etc.

What is necessary for falsifiability is that it is theoretically possible that observable data could disprove it. Thus, any theory that is dependent on observation is falsifiable since it is theoretically possible that this data could prove to be inaccurate or incomplete.

BINGO. This should end the conversation on falsifiability.

Logged

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

What is necessary for falsifiability is that it is theoretically possible that observable data could disprove it. Thus, any theory that is dependent on observation is falsifiable since it is theoretically possible that this data could prove to be inaccurate or incomplete.

The theory has never bin proven to be correct through observable data to begin with. Thats why it still remains a theory. But there is no data to falsify the theory either. That is why it remains in limbo until it can be proven or falsified. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific explanation. There has never bin an observation of any kind. So there can never be a explanation.

The theory has never bin proven to be correct through observable data to begin with. Thats why it still remains a theory. But there is no data to falsify the theory either. That is why it remains in limbo until it can be proven or falsified. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific explanation. There has never bin an observation of any kind. So there can never be a explanation.

Don't get hung up on the word "theory" - It's still the Theory of Relativity, even though there's plenty of proof sufficient to support large parts of the theory.

Logged

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

The theory has never bin proven to be correct through observable data to begin with. Thats why it still remains a theory. But there is no data to falsify the theory either. That is why it remains in limbo until it can be proven or falsified. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific explanation. There has never bin an observation of any kind. So there can never be a explanation.

It's a theory because it depends on observable evidence which can never constitute a 'proof' in mathematical terms.

Edit - your sentence said "depends no observable" when you obviously mean "depends on observable." If I have erred, let me know and I'll switch it back. - Cleveland, GM

It's a theory because it depends on observable evidence which can never constitute a 'proof' in mathematical terms.

Edit - your sentence said "depends no observable" when you obviously mean "depends on observable." If I have erred, let me know and I'll switch it back. - Cleveland, GM

An apple falling is observable. A species leaping into another species isn't. Since there has never bin any such occurrence under observable conditions.You really can't create a theory based on something that may never have occurred. That is why it becomes circular. It may be explaining something that doesn't exist. I can create a theory for an alien space ship departures from mars to earth, and calculate that that ship will make it hear in 9 days 2 hours at said rate of speed. The speed and size of the ship is now known, but does that ship exist?

An apple falling is observable. A species leaping into another species isn't. Since there has never bin any such occurrence under observable conditions.You really can't create a theory based on something that may never have occurred. That is why it becomes circular. It may be explaining something that doesn't exist. I can create a theory for an alien space ship departures from mars to earth, and calculate that that ship will make it hear in 9 days 2 hours at said rate of speed. The speed and size of the ship is now known, but does that ship exist?

Ha! DNA is a substance just like anything else. Without motion one can never form an observance. An Observation is based on motion.

You can't observe a substance? Really? The dirt under my feet does not move relative to me, but I'm fairly certain that it's there.

Actually, the validity of an observation in scientific terms is based on repeatability, not motion. If somthing observed is not repeatable, the value of this observation is greatly diminished. Of course, deducing past events from current evidence does require the use of logic and reason, but, then again, so does making any useful statement about an observed motion.

You can't observe a substance? Really? The dirt under my feet does not move relative to me, but I'm fairly certain that it's there.

Actually, the validity of an observation in scientific terms is based on repeatability, not motion. If somthing observed is not repeatable, the value of this observation is greatly diminished. Of course, deducing past events from current evidence does require the use of logic and reason, but, then again, so does making any useful statement about an observed motion.

What observed science are we talking about? If we can't observe a phenomena we can't form a theory. That's all there is to it. To even try and call it a science is a joke at best.

If you can develop a model which makes accurate predictions and if these predictions can be verified independently, then that model constitutes a valid theory.

You all know how scientifically ignorant and under-educated I am, so I guess it really doesn't matter if I ask another question that would display said ignorance .

Demetrios said, "If we can't observe a phenomena we can't form a theory." If the phenomenon in question is that of one species becoming (evolving into?) another species, when and where has that been observed? If this is the model you referred to, GiC, what exactly is that model and how does it work? I truly do seek to know and understand, so please bear my ignorance in mind if and when answering--you know, simple, easy enough for a layman to understand. Many thanks!

God bless,Jeff

Logged

"Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it, and right is right even if nobody is doing it." Augustine of Hippo

You all know how scientifically ignorant and under-educated I am, so I guess it really doesn't matter if I ask another question that would display said ignorance .

Demetrios said, "If we can't observe a phenomena we can't form a theory." If the phenomenon in question is that of one species becoming (evolving into?) another species, when and where has that been observed? If this is the model you referred to, GiC, what exactly is that model and how does it work? I truly do seek to know and understand, so please bear my ignorance in mind if and when answering--you know, simple, easy enough for a layman to understand. Many thanks!